Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-13-2012, 10:14 PM   #46
The Mongoose
THROW SOME THUNDAAAH!!!!
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 8,729
vCash: 258
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Iron View Post
It really has little to do with Ezzard Charles and everything to do with bolstering someone's resume. "He'd Beat A PRime Tyson!!!11"

Where as someone like Holmes wipes out double the number of rated opponents and is considered to have a an inferior resume.
Oddly enough Marciano has double the wins over top 5 opponents at 10.

Cooney, Spinks, Norton, Shavers, and Bey were the only fighters in the top 5 when Holmes defeated them.

A case can be made.
The Mongoose is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-14-2012, 12:32 AM   #47
Hands of Iron
#MSE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,356
vCash: 75
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mongoose View Post
Oddly enough Marciano has double the wins over top 5 opponents at 10.

Cooney, Spinks, Norton, Shavers, and Bey were the only fighters in the top 5 when Holmes defeated them.

A case can be made.
I like it. Very rarely seen it get that specific. Usually beating top ten guys consistently is considered good work. I believe Mercer was also amongst the top five when Holmes schooled him in '92 and handed him his first loss.
Hands of Iron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 02:48 AM   #48
MadcapMaxie
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Prime Charles would be more slick and quicker but also weaker and smaller, Marciano's punches would be more damaging. Marciano by late TKO.
MadcapMaxie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 04:29 AM   #49
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,652
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

marciano did beat a prime charles. Here is a post by another poster I found:

Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. In both he had three close decisions. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed. So were the 1952 fights with Walcott and Layne, and the 1953 fight with Johnson. The big difference is that Charles won 2 of 3 of his late 1940's disputed decisions, getting the nods over Moore and Maxim. He lost all three of his early 1950's disputed decisions, even though the press thought he deserved the fights with Walcott and Layne, and the film shows an extremely close fight with Johnson. One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were the equals of, or more than the equals of, Moore, Ray, and Maxim.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 06:20 AM   #50
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,858
vCash: 330
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

As I say, i'll look into the losses to see my opinion of them, but at face value it has to be seen as slipping.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 08:39 PM   #51
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,652
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
As I say, i'll look into the losses to see my opinion of them, but at face value it has to be seen as slipping.
have you researched those losses yet? I dont think charles was anymore dominant in the late 1940s than he was during the post title, pre marciano period. apart from the walcott KO loss there is a case to say Charles had not been beaten beyond dispute since the war until he met rocky marciano.

If charles was any better a fighter at the time he fought barone, beshore and lee oma than he was against marciano then the press reports do not back it up IMO.

Last edited by choklab; 03-14-2012 at 08:50 PM.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 08:47 PM   #52
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,666
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
have you researched those losses yet? I dont think charles was anymore dominant in the late 1940s than he was during the post title, pre marciano period. apart from the walcott KO loss there is a case to say Charles had not been beaten beyond dispute since the war until he met rocky marciano.
The reality, putting Rocky nughuggers aside who boost Charles to boost Rocky, is that Charles was a terrific fighter, a great light heavyweight and a pretty good heavyweight in an era of small heavyweights .. in addition, there is no doubt that after 100 fights and at age 33 he was past his best when he fought Marciano ... I'm not sure he beats Marciano at his best but I've never felt he was a gage on all time heavyweight greatness ... to me he was a blown up light heavyweight ...
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 01:09 AM   #53
Grinder
Dude, don't call me Dude
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,496
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Marciano was a career halting fight. No man was the same after fighting him. Thus, people can deduce that a fighter looks bad after Marciano and therefore past it even before facing Marciano. This is not necessarily true.
Grinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 04:24 AM   #54
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,652
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by he grant View Post
The reality, putting Rocky nughuggers aside who boost Charles to boost Rocky, is that Charles was a terrific fighter, a great light heavyweight and a pretty good heavyweight in an era of small heavyweights .. in addition, there is no doubt that after 100 fights and at age 33 he was past his best when he fought Marciano ... I'm not sure he beats Marciano at his best but I've never felt he was a gage on all time heavyweight greatness ... to me he was a blown up light heavyweight ...

Charles’s peak was 1946-1953.
I hear a lot about Charles being a light heavyweight. He was the same size as jack dempsey. Charles only ever featured in the light heavyweight rankings for two years 1946-1947, before that he was absent during the war and always less than 169lb. so he was a LH for a very short time.
Even 1947 is stretching it, of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the light heavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. By 1953 Charles had fought and beat more heavyweight contenders than most ATG's.

Both Charles and Marciano started around the same time after the war only difference was Charles also had a brief 28-3-1 record that ended when he was a 21 year old kid (that began when he was still in high school) before he took a 3 year break and started again.

After a clean break from boxing Charles was 55-7 against Marciano who was 45-0 and only 2 years younger.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 05:23 AM   #55
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,420
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

I don't think that the notion that Charles was at his prime for Marciano is sensible.

175 is generally regarded as his prime weight for one thing, the footage we have shows a fighter better generally on his feet and more fluid in terms of punching anyway.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 08:22 AM   #56
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,666
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
Charles’s peak was 1946-1953.
I hear a lot about Charles being a light heavyweight. He was the same size as jack dempsey. Charles only ever featured in the light heavyweight rankings for two years 1946-1947, before that he was absent during the war and always less than 169lb. so he was a LH for a very short time.
Even 1947 is stretching it, of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the light heavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. By 1953 Charles had fought and beat more heavyweight contenders than most ATG's.

Both Charles and Marciano started around the same time after the war only difference was Charles also had a brief 28-3-1 record that ended when he was a 21 year old kid (that began when he was still in high school) before he took a 3 year break and started again.

After a clean break from boxing Charles was 55-7 against Marciano who was 45-0 and only 2 years younger.
There are a few details left out ...

Charles started as a middleweight, then moved up to light heavyweight ... he eventually jumped to heavy for the money like most light heavyweights that do ... he also dominated at light heavyweight at a way he never came close to at heavyweight beating such greats as Burley and Moore ...

Marciano was a 200 pound guy that trained down to cruiser because it was his best fighting weight.

Dempsey was naturally larger than charles as well , an inch taller, four inches in reach ... at the 189 or so he fought Carpentier he was ripped. That being said I have always referred to Dempsey was a cruiserweight. Unlike Charles his biggest victories came in the heavyweight division .. that being said he was small as well ..
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 10:17 AM   #57
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,410
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

I scored both Marciano bouts for Charles. (I have documented proof the second fight was actually scheduled for 7 rounds).

I have petitioned the various authorities to reverse these decisions as obviously Charles was the superior heavyweight.
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 11:09 AM   #58
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I do think he'd slipped by the time he fought rocky.

He got stopped by a perfect punch against jersey, but other than that, he hadn't really lost since returning to boxing in 46.

After losing to jersey, he lost to him again, lost to layne, lost to valdes and lost to johnson.

He picked up many victories as well during this time.

I'd like to read up on the valdes fight more. I plan on watching the harold johnson fight later.

Unless i'm missing something with these losses, i'd say jersey was the last man to beat a prime charles.

From 1946 - the two fights vs. Rocky Marciano (1955)... Ezzard Charles only lost to Elmer Ray ('47), Jersey Joe Walcott ('51 and '52), Rex Layne, Nino Valdes ('53), and Harold Johnson ('53). A case can be made that the KO loss to Walcott should have been the only loss during this time period. He went 1-1 (1) vs. Ray, 2-2 vs. Walcott, and 2-1 (1) vs. Layne... 5-4 (2) vs. these men lifetime but a serious case can be made for 8-1 (2).

Charles went 39-1 from 1946 - the first loss to Walcott in 1951. He had already beat Walcott twice. The only loss during this time was a split-decision to Elmer Ray that could have went either way. He stopped Ray in 9 rounds in the rematch.

After the 39-1 stretch he went 14-5 leading up to the two losses vs. Marciano. He went 0-2 vs. Marciano then 10-13 leading up to his retirement. In my honest opinion Charles was slipping after he lost the HW Title but he was still very good for a few years after.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 11:47 AM   #59
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,666
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookie View Post
From 1946 - the two fights vs. Rocky Marciano (1955)... Ezzard Charles only lost to Elmer Ray ('47), Jersey Joe Walcott ('51 and '52), Rex Layne, Nino Valdes ('53), and Harold Johnson ('53). A case can be made that the KO loss to Walcott should have been the only loss during this time period. He went 1-1 (1) vs. Ray, 2-2 vs. Walcott, and 2-1 (1) vs. Layne... 5-4 (2) vs. these men lifetime but a serious case can be made for 8-1 (2).

Charles went 39-1 from 1946 - the first loss to Walcott in 1951. He had already beat Walcott twice. The only loss during this time was a split-decision to Elmer Ray that could have went either way. He stopped Ray in 9 rounds in the rematch.

After the 39-1 stretch he went 14-5 leading up to the two losses vs. Marciano. He went 0-2 vs. Marciano then 10-13 leading up to his retirement. In my honest opinion Charles was slipping after he lost the HW Title but he was still very good for a few years after.
Pretty much how it was ...
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2012, 02:42 PM   #60
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,652
vCash: 500
Default Re: How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
I don't think that the notion that Charles was at his prime for Marciano is sensible.
I think ezzard in 1951-1953 was still capable of producing his best work for selected fights in the way ali was still capable of his best for selected fights around 1974. ezzard charles was exactly the same age against marciano as ALI was for george foreman. charles was sensational against walace and satterfeild as ali was great beating norton and frazier in return fights.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013